Kaliico-
To my way of thinking, backing the Contras- and the manner in which the Reagan Administration dealt with it- did not represent official corruption. That is not to say that it represented sound policy or execution thereof. Even if RR and George were "out of the loop", which strains credibility, it was still officials acting on what they thought were the best interest of the US and Nicauragua and in accord with the president's wishes. Please, I'm not defending the policy, although I'd note the Ortega brothers were not exactly boy scouts. Ask the Mesquito Indians they butchered. US officials may have legitimately believed they had to lie to protect national interests and live of our allies. These are not trivial concerns, and they may justify official lying IMO. Of course, I too would share a sense of outrage if CIA operatives engaged in the murder of innocents or non-combatants. To the extent it happened, the facts should be brought to light- one wonders why this administration has not done so.
Bill Clinton, on the other hand, is reasonably accused of perjury simply to protect his own ass. He is a deeply corrupt man, and so is that bitchy wife of his who got Bill's "friends" to slip her a cool $100,000 via rigged commodity trades- BTW, I don't believe for a minute that Bill was unaware of it. Even his touching protestations about wanting to shield his family ring hollow. His actions with Monica were simply a continuation of a lifelong pattern about which Hillary was well aware. He was not so concerned about the effect on his family that he would refrain from his lifelong pattern of infidelity in a manner that his wife would certainly know about.
In the so-called scandals you refer to during the Reagan administration, nobody in the administration got rich. The same cannot be said of recent Democrat presidents, with the exception of Jimmy Carter (well that leaves LBJ and Bill).
Now do you have any appreciation for why some of us hold the current president in such low regard?
Larry |
